http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/18/news...woes/index.htm

quote:

"Fewer brands, less capacity?
GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz caused a media storm last month when he suggested that Buick and Pontiac were "damaged brands" due to lack of investment in the past.

Ford has its own troubled brands, mostly higher-end imports such as Jaguar and Land Rover.

While executives at both companies insist they aren't looking at ways to cut back on brands, it's an option that analysts say can't be dismissed.

"Jaguar is an open wound. They will probably be better off shutting it down," said Healy. "I think Land Rover has better chances of turning around, but it's been a disaster up to now."

But the problem with cutting brands, besides angering the powerful dealer groups, is that it is likely to accelerate overall market share losses and give the companies even greater overcapacity. Since the companies essentially can't lay off hourly employees during the life of the current contracts, closing plants does little to trim costs.

Some experts say announcing plans now to close plants in 2007 could give an important signal to both Wall Street and the union that the status quo won't continue. "

 

I've actually been suggesting that. Especially with Ford and their troubled European brands. Jaguar alone lost 750million last year and they are going to be losing 1+ billion this year. There's no way that you can keep a troubled brand like that without cutting into your bottom line significantly. And Ford can't afford any extra losses given their dwindling market share. Same with GM. They need to give Saab and whatever seriously troubled brand (except Pontiac) the boot.

Likewise, Ford needs to kill off Mercury (rebadged fords with a bit more chrome and fluff, redundant), as well as all their European brands except Volvo since they're profitible. Lincoln is worth keeping around.

 

Ford should just move all Jaguar and Lincoln manufacturing into the same plants in the US. Lincoln should remain a luxury brand with a defined American Style and Jaguar should remain Luxury with a old European flair.

 

My first inclination is to say that upscale brands like Saab and Jaguar are worth saving, while faded and fuzzy "middle market" players like Buick and Mercury really have to go. On the other hand, Jaguar still hasn't turned around after the better part of two decades and Saab has absolutely no chance of competing head-on with Volvo.

 

While Saab never had great sales volume Im sure GM bought it thinking they could rebadge other GM cars and sell them as a Saab and try to make Saab into a Volvo-like safety brand. While Ford has had more success with Volvo but this has been done at the expense of Jaguar so if you combine the success/failure of Volvo/Jaguar they are most likely no better off then GMs Saab.

 

Ford would rather cut off it's right arm than jettison Jaguar.

Healy's got that one wrong. Jag should have never been moved to become a volume producer, that's where Ford erred. The 2nd place where Ford screwed up was when Jac Nasser created a mess that ended up decimating Lincoln's multiple-billion dollar future product lineup that would have been on the streets by now. The RWD chassis of these planned Lincolns would have shared parts and structures with Jaguar. The Lincoln LS was just the start of this.

The amount of money Ford sank in building the new all-alumunum chassis Jag was probally enough to fund 2 other product's development. I'm sure other things compounded this (British labor unions make our UAW & CAW seem like corperate flunkies & who came up with the X-type?! ), but that's the gist of it.


If Land Rover were made here in newly cheap labor/ cheap dollar USA, that alone would cure it.

 

Ford can't kill Mercury because Lincoln-Mercury dealerships can't survive on Lincoln only volume.

 

around here they are all three.